UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FORM 10-K

Commission File Number: 001-16765

TRIZEC PROPERTIES, INC.

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements relating to our business and financial outlook, which are based on our current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may”, “will”, “should”, “expects”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “estimates”, “predicts”, “potential” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties, estimates and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. You should not place undue reliance on any of these forward-looking statements. Further, any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made, and we undertake no obligation to update any such statement to reflect new information, the occurrence of future events or circumstances or otherwise.

A number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the risks described under “Item 1. Business — Risk Factors” in this Form 10-K.

2

PART I

     In this report, the terms “we”, “us”, “our”, “our company” and “Trizec” refer to Trizec Properties, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.

Item 1.	Business

Overview

     Trizec Properties, Inc. is one of the largest fully integrated, self-managed, publicly traded real estate investment trusts, or REITs, in the United States. At December 31, 2003, we had total assets of approximately $5.2 billion and owned interests in and managed 64 U.S. office properties containing approximately 42.5 million square feet, with our pro rata ownership interest totaling approximately 39.6 million square feet. Our office properties are concentrated in seven core markets in the United States, located in the following major metropolitan areas: Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Dallas, Texas; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; New York, New York and Washington, D.C.

     We were originally incorporated as Trizec (USA) Holdings, Inc. in Delaware on October 25, 1989. We changed our name to TrizecHahn (USA) Corporation in 1996 and then to Trizec Properties, Inc. in 2002. Our principal executive offices are located at 233 South Wacker Drive, 46th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60606 and our telephone number at that address is (312) 798-6000.

The Corporate Reorganization

     On May 8, 2002, a plan of arrangement implementing a corporate reorganization of Canada-based TrizecHahn Corporation, our former parent company, became effective. As a result of this reorganization, we became a U.S.-based publicly traded REIT owning, primarily, the U.S. assets that TrizecHahn Corporation and its subsidiaries owned prior to the reorganization. As a REIT, we are generally not subject to U.S. federal income tax if we distribute 100% of our taxable income and comply with a number of organizational and operational requirements.

     The corporate reorganization was designed to create a publicly traded REIT while reducing withholding tax liabilities and minimizing the recognition of potential tax liabilities on unrealized appreciation in value that were present in TrizecHahn Corporation’s ownership structure prior to the reorganization. The corporate reorganization was also intended to create economic equivalence between shares of our common stock and Trizec Canada Inc. subordinate voting shares or multiple voting shares.

     The reorganization was implemented pursuant to a plan of arrangement that was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and TrizecHahn Corporation’s shareholders. Upon implementation of the plan of arrangement, holders of TrizecHahn Corporation’s subordinate voting shares exchanged their shares, on a one-for-one basis, for one or more of the following securities:

	•		shares of our common stock;
	•		exchange certificates representing underlying shares of our common stock; or
	•		Trizec Canada subordinate voting shares.

     Generally, in exchange for their TrizecHahn Corporation shares, holders of TrizecHahn Corporation subordinate voting shares who certified that they were qualifying U.S. persons received shares of our common stock and all other holders received a combination of our exchange certificates and Trizec Canada subordinate voting shares. The exchange certificates were exchangeable for our common stock on a one-for-one basis on the condition that the holder provided us with certification that it was a qualifying U.S. person. At the end of the three-month exchange period, all exchange certificates that remained outstanding expired, and the shares of common stock underlying those exchange certificates were sold on the open market to qualifying U.S. persons. As a result, approximately 60% of our common stock is owned primarily by qualifying U.S. persons. The remaining approximately 40% of our common stock is owned indirectly by Trizec Canada through its subsidiaries, with the

3

result that Trizec Canada indirectly holds one share of our common stock for each outstanding Trizec Canada subordinate voting share.

     In addition to owning shares of our common stock, Trizec Canada, indirectly through its subsidiaries, owns all shares of our Class F convertible stock and special voting stock. Trizec Canada’s indirect ownership of our Class F convertible stock and special voting stock is intended to maintain the economic equivalence described above. The Class F convertible stock is convertible into our common stock in certain tax-related circumstances so that Trizec Canada and its subsidiaries, on the one hand, and our other stockholders, on the other hand, may share ratably certain future taxes that TrizecHahn Corporation, Trizec Canada or their subsidiaries may incur in those specified circumstances. The conversion feature applies to taxes incurred in connection with the corporate reorganization or with specified major corporate transactions entered into within 66 months after the corporate reorganization and specified transactions or events following the 63rd month after the corporate reorganization. In addition, to address certain non-Canadian tax liabilities of Trizec Canada’s indirect, wholly-owned Hungarian subsidiary and its direct and indirect shareholders, Trizec Canada receives, directly or indirectly, dividends on our special voting stock. These dividends, when aggregated with dividends received by the Hungarian subsidiary on our common stock and after deducting related non-Canadian taxes, equal the dividends received by our U.S. stockholders on our common stock on a per share basis. Dividends on our special voting stock are payable only in connection with common stock dividends paid within 66 months after the corporate reorganization.

     Our special voting stock also entitles its holder to votes that, when aggregated with votes of shares of common stock held by Trizec Canada or its subsidiaries, represent a majority of the votes in elections of our board of directors. As a result of the special voting right, provided that Trizec Canada holds at least 5% of our common stock, Trizec Canada and its majority shareholder will have voting control over the election of our directors, even though Trizec Canada will not own a majority of our common stock. This special voting right will expire on January 1, 2008.

     Outstanding options to purchase subordinate voting shares of TrizecHahn Corporation were cancelled and replaced as part of the corporate reorganization. Under the plan of arrangement, all outstanding stock options of TrizecHahn Corporation were cancelled and exchanged for either (1) options to purchase our common stock, (2) warrants to purchase our common stock or (3) options to purchase Trizec Canada subordinate voting shares. Consistent with the one-for-one exchange ratio, the intrinsic value of each of our options or warrants or each Trizec Canada option immediately after the corporate reorganization was substantially the same as the intrinsic value of the replaced TrizecHahn Corporation option immediately prior to the corporate reorganization. By intrinsic value, we mean the then current market value of the shares subject to the option or warrant less the exercise price.

     Additionally, to preserve the economic equivalence between one share of our common stock and one Trizec Canada subordinate voting share, Trizec Canada or a wholly-owned subsidiary of Trizec Canada received warrants to purchase one share of our common stock for each Trizec Canada option issued in the corporate reorganization. All warrants to purchase our shares have a fixed term that is not contingent on continued service with us or Trizec Canada as an employee, officer or director. The warrants are freely transferable and fully vested and exercisable.

Business and Growth Strategies

     Our overall goal is to increase stockholder value. We can achieve this goal by creating sustained growth in operating cash flow and maximizing the value of our assets. We believe we can accomplish this using the following strategies:

	•		intensively leasing and managing our properties to maximize property rent revenue and minimize property operating expenses;
	•		vigorously engaging in asset management to enhance the value of our properties;
	•		actively managing our portfolio to maximize total value of our properties;
	•		improving the efficiency and productivity of our operations; and
	•		maintaining a prudent and flexible capital plan.

4

     Intensively Leasing and Managing Our Properties

     By intensively leasing and managing our properties, we expect to maximize property rent revenue and minimize property operating expenses. To maximize property rent revenue and minimize property operating expenses, we have focused on:

•

providing appropriate, profitable tenant services;

	•		where market rents exceed in-place rents, narrowing the gap between market rents and in-place rents as leases for our properties expire;
	•		increasing occupancy in our properties;
	•		renewing leases with existing tenants;
	•		carefully controlling operating costs; and
	•		carefully managing investments in tenant improvements.

     In 2003, average gross rental rates on 6.9 million square feet of new and renewal leases (6.2 million square feet on a pro rata basis) increased by approximately $0.11 per square foot (decreased by approximately $0.60 per square foot on a pro rata basis). This increase generally reflected the impact of re-leasing space in properties at higher average rents than the average rents in effect at lease expiration. For our total portfolio, our estimates of market rents at December 31, 2003 were on average approximately 2% below our in-place rents.

     Vacant space in our portfolio, which approximated 13.2% or approximately 5.6 million square feet (approximated 13.4% or approximately 5.3 million square feet on a pro rata basis) at December 31, 2003, represents an opportunity to increase our cash flow.

     Cash received on our rental revenue has and will continue to benefit from contractual rental increases, opportunistic lease terminations and the execution of “blend and extend” strategies, which allow early lease renewals at rates that blend the rents of the current lease with the rents for the renewal term.

     Vigorously Engaging in Asset Management

     Our asset management strategy is to invest capital in our existing portfolio to increase its value and marketability. To accomplish this strategy, we engage in such activities as acquiring ground leases and air rights ancillary to existing properties and renovating and upgrading office properties.

     In 2003, we incurred approximately $100.4 million (approximately $113.2 million on a pro rata basis) to renovate and upgrade our properties, including tenant improvements. We intend to continue to actively engage in these and similar activities as appropriate and as market conditions warrant.

     Actively Managing Our Portfolio

     Our portfolio strategy is to invest in office properties in our core markets, which all represent major metropolitan areas that have historically demonstrated high job growth. For the year ended December 31, 2003, our seven core markets accounted for approximately 79% of our total office property rental revenue. We believe that focusing on office properties in our core markets will allow us to achieve economies of scale across a diverse base of tenants and to enjoy a significant leasing presence in our markets. By maintaining a wider range of properties in a market, we believe that we are also able to attract a broader tenant base, which provides a more sustainable cash flow. As part of our focus on office properties in our core markets and core submarkets, we sold eight non-core office assets in 2003. With these sales we have exited several non-core markets and submarkets where we had owned single office property assets, including Detroit, Memphis, West Palm Beach and the Los Angeles Airport submarket.

     As part of our long-term strategy, we intend to continue to acquire additional office properties, as opportunities arise, capital becomes available and market conditions permit, particularly in these core markets. We may acquire properties individually or as part of a portfolio, or as joint ventures or other business combinations. We

5

may also acquire additional equity partners interests on selected properties. As opportunities arise and market conditions dictate, we may dispose of properties, including non-core assets that are not complementary to this strategy. We may also dispose of currently owned properties and acquire new ones within our core markets, or explore entry into other similar markets, based on our view of the direction of the office properties market.

     Improving the Efficiency and Productivity of Our Operations

     The careful control of both property operating expenses as well as general and administrative expenses is key to achieving our goal of maximizing our operating cash flow. In 2002 we began a process of maximizing our operating cash flow by realigning and simplifying our management structure and consolidating our seven regional accounting, payroll and information services functions in Chicago. This process resulted in a net reduction of approximately 85 employees as of the end of 2002, and increased efficiency in our service operation. We have continued to evaluate and improve our operational structure and have implemented policies and procedures to increase productivity. We intend to continue to seek ways to generate general and administrative expense savings over time.

     Maintaining a Prudent and Flexible Capital Plan

     We believe that, in order to maximize our cash flow growth, our asset management and operating strategies must be complemented by a capital strategy designed to maximize the return on our capital. Our capital strategy is to:

	•		maintain adequate working capital and lines of credit to ensure liquidity and flexibility;
	•		employ an appropriate degree of leverage;
	•		maintain floating rate debt at a level that allows us to take advantage of lower interest costs and minimize loan pre-payment costs when possible; and
	•		actively manage our exposure to interest rate volatility through the use of long-term fixed-rate debt and various hedging strategies.

     We regularly review various credit ratios such as outstanding debt-to-book value, outstanding debt-to-asset value, fixed charge ratio and interest coverage ratio to monitor our leverage. We are also aware of the risk of interest rate increases. In order to mitigate the risk of rising interest rates, we may pursue fixed rate financing. In addition, from time to time, we may enter into interest rate derivative contracts in order to limit our exposure to increasing interest rates. During 2003, by way of interest rate swap agreements, we had fixed the interest rates on $150.0 million of variable rate debt at a weighted average interest rate of 6.02%, and $500.0 million of variable rate debt at a weighted average interest rate of 2.61% plus various spreads. We monitor both the amount of our leverage and the mix of our fixed/floating-rate debt to provide a more reliable stream of earnings.

     An important source of liquidity for us is a secured revolving line of credit that we renegotiated in the fourth quarter of 2002. The credit facility includes numerous financial covenants that govern our ability to borrow under the facility and the amount of borrowings that are available under the facility. Under the secured facility, as amended and restated, the financial covenants are more flexible and our capacity to borrow is more certain than under the original facility. As of December 31, 2003, the amount eligible to be borrowed under this facility was approximately $217.0 million, none of which was outstanding.

     To the extent we believe it necessary and efficient we may raise capital through a variety of means in addition to our traditional secured debt, including but not limited to selling assets, entering into joint ventures or partnerships with equity providers, issuing equity securities or a combination of these methods.

Competition

     The leasing of real estate is highly competitive. We compete for tenants with lessors and developers of similar properties located in our respective markets primarily on the basis of location, rent charged, services provided, and the design and condition of our buildings. We also experience competition when attempting to

6

acquire real estate, including competition from domestic and foreign financial institutions, other REITs, life insurance companies, pension trusts, trust funds, partnerships and individual investors.

Industry Segments and Seasonality

     Our primary business is the ownership and management of office properties. Our long-term tenants are in a variety of businesses and no single tenant is significant to our business. Our properties are concentrated in seven core markets with similar economic characteristics. Information by geographic segment for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001 is set forth in Note 25 to the consolidated financial statements included in this Form 10-K. Our business is not seasonal.

Employees and Organizational Structure

     At March 5, 2004, we had approximately 920 employees. Of these employees, approximately 192 were employed in our corporate offices, with the remainder employed regionally and locally in the operation of our property portfolio. Additionally, approximately 161 of our employees who are employed in our office portfolio operations are represented by labor unions. We consider our labor relations to be positive and anticipate maintaining agreements with our labor unions on terms satisfactory to all parties.

     During 2003, we continued the process of centralizing our corporate leadership and portfolio management functions in Chicago. Consistent with our focus on core cities, we have dedicated regional leasing and property management teams based in Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Dallas, Texas; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; New York, New York and Washington, D.C.

Environmental Matters

     We are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to environmental matters. Under these laws, we are exposed to liability primarily as an owner or operator of real property and, as such, we may be responsible for the cleanup or other remediation of contaminated property. Contamination for which we may be liable could include historic contamination, spills of hazardous materials in the course of our tenants’ regular business operations and spills or releases of hydraulic or other toxic oils. An owner or operator can be liable for contamination or hazardous or toxic substances in some circumstances whether or not the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such contamination or hazardous or toxic substances. In addition, the presence of contamination or hazardous or toxic substances on property, or the failure to properly clean up or remediate such contamination or hazardous or toxic substances when present, may materially and adversely affect our ability to sell or lease such contaminated property or to borrow using such property as collateral.

     Asbestos-containing material, or ACM, is present in some of our properties. Environmental laws govern the presence, maintenance and removal of asbestos. We believe that we manage ACM in accordance with applicable laws. We plan to continue managing ACM as appropriate and in accordance with applicable laws and believe that the cost to do so will not be material.

     Compliance with existing environmental laws has not had a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations, and we do not believe it will have such an impact in the future. In addition, we have not incurred, and do not expect to incur any material costs or liabilities due to environmental contamination at properties we currently own or have owned in the past. However, we cannot predict the impact of new or changed laws or regulations on our current properties or on properties that we may acquire in the future. We have no current plans for substantial capital expenditures with respect to compliance with environmental laws.

Available Information

     A copy of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as well as our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to these reports, are available free of charge on the Internet at our website, www.trz.com, as soon as reasonably practicable (generally, within one day) after we electronically file these reports with, or furnish these reports to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. The reference to our

7

website address does not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on the website and that information should not be considered part of this document.

     In addition, we have posted the charters for our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Corporate Governance Committee and Nominating Committee, as well as our Corporate Governance Principles and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, on our website at www.trz.com under the headings “Investors — Corporate Governance”. We will also provide a print copy of these documents to stockholders upon request.

RISK FACTORS

     You should carefully consider the risks described below. These risks are not the only ones that our company may face. Additional risks not presently known to us or that we currently consider immaterial may also impair our business operations and hinder our ability to make expected distributions to our stockholders.

     This report also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including the risks faced by us described below or elsewhere in this report.

Risks Relating To Our Business

Our economic performance and the value of our real estate assets are subject to the risks incidental to the ownership and operation of real estate properties.

     Our economic performance, the value of our real estate assets and, therefore, the value of your investment are subject to the risks normally associated with the ownership and operation of real estate properties, including but not limited to:

•

changes in the general and local economic climate;

•

the cyclical nature of the real estate industry and possible oversupply of, or reduced demand for, space in our core markets;

•

trends in the retail industry, in employment levels and in consumer spending patterns;

•

changes in interest rates and the availability of financing;

•

competition from other properties;

•

further declines in the overall economic activity in our core markets;

•

changes in market rental rates and our ability to rent space on favorable terms;

•

the bankruptcy, insolvency or credit deterioration of our tenants;

•

the need to periodically renovate, repair and re-lease space and the costs thereof;

•

increases in maintenance, insurance and operating costs;

•

civil unrest, acts of terrorism, earthquakes and other natural disasters or acts of God that may result in uninsured losses;

•

the attractiveness of our properties to tenants; and

•

changes in the availability and affordability of insurance on commercially reasonable terms, in levels of coverage for our real estate assets and in exclusions from insurance policies for our real estate assets.

     In addition, applicable federal, state and local regulations, zoning and tax laws and potential liability under environmental and other laws may affect real estate values. Real estate investments are relatively illiquid and, therefore, our ability to vary our portfolio quickly in response to changes in economic or other conditions is limited. Further, we must make significant expenditures, including property taxes, maintenance costs, mortgage payments, insurance costs and related charges, throughout the period that we own real property regardless of whether the property is producing any income. The risks associated with real estate investments may adversely affect our operating results and financial position, and, therefore, may adversely affect the amount of our dividends or our ability to pay those dividends.

8

Our inability to enter into renewal or new leases on favorable terms for all or a substantial portion of space that is subject to expiring leases would adversely affect our cash flows and operating results.

     Scheduled lease expirations in our U.S. office portfolio over the next five years average approximately 9.6% annually, based on owned space at December 31, 2003. When leases for our properties expire, we may be unable to promptly renew leases with existing tenants or lease the properties to new tenants. In addition, even if we were able to enter into renewal or new leases in a timely manner, the terms of those leases may be less favorable to us than the terms of expiring leases because:

•

the rental rates of the renewal or new leases may be significantly lower than those of the expiring leases; or

•

tenant installation costs, including the cost of required renovations or concessions to tenants, may be significant.

     We expect significant lease expirations in 2004 among our office properties in New York, Houston, Atlanta and Los Angeles area. In order to enter into renewal or new leases for large blocks of space in these markets, we may incur substantial tenant installation costs or enter into renewal or new leases at rates below existing lease rates. If we are unable to enter into renewal or new leases on favorable terms for all or a substantial portion of space that is subject to expiring leases, our cash flows and operating results would suffer, which could reduce the amount of our dividends.

If a significant number of our tenants defaulted or sought bankruptcy protection, our cash flows and operating results would suffer.

     A tenant may experience a downturn in its business, which could cause the loss of that tenant or weaken its financial condition and result in the tenant’s inability to make rental payments when due. In addition, a tenant of any of our properties may seek the protection of bankruptcy, insolvency or similar laws, which could result in the rejection and termination of such tenant’s lease and cause a reduction in our cash flows. Although we have not experienced material losses from tenant bankruptcies, we cannot assure you that tenants will not file for bankruptcy or similar protection in the future resulting in material losses.

     We cannot evict a tenant solely because of its bankruptcy. A court, however, may authorize a tenant to reject and terminate its lease with us. In such a case, our claim against the tenant for unpaid, future rent would be subject to a statutory cap that might be substantially less than the remaining rent owed under the lease. In any event, it is unlikely that a bankrupt tenant will pay in full amounts it owes us under a lease. The loss of rental payments from tenants and costs of re-leasing would adversely affect our cash flows and operating results, thereby reducing the amount of our dividends.

Our business is substantially dependent on the economic climates of seven core markets.

     Our real estate portfolio consists mainly of office properties in seven core markets, located in the following major metropolitan areas: Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Dallas, Texas; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; New York, New York and Washington, D.C. As a result, our business is substantially dependent on the economies of these markets. As a result of the current slowdown in economic activity, there has been an increase in vacancy rates for office properties in all of these markets. A continuing, prolonged downturn in the economies of these core markets, or the impact that a downturn in the overall national economy may have upon these economies, could result in further reduced demand for office space. Although we believe that our real estate portfolio is significantly diversified, a material downturn in demand for office space in any one of our core markets could have a material impact on our ability to lease the office space in our portfolio and may adversely impact our cash flows, operating results and the amount of our dividends.

We may have difficulty selling our properties, which may limit our flexibility.

     Large and high quality office properties like the ones that we own can be difficult to sell, especially if local market conditions are poor. This may limit our ability to change our portfolio promptly in response to changes in

9

economic or other conditions. In addition, federal tax laws impact our decisions to sell properties that we have owned for fewer than four years, and this may affect our ability to sell properties without adversely affecting returns to our stockholders. Even if we do sell our properties, we may choose to acquire additional properties within a certain time-frame to avoid adverse tax consequences and take advantage of tax-free exchange provisions. These restrictions reduce our ability to respond to changes in the performance of our investments and could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

The continuing threat of terrorism may adversely affect operating results from our properties, as well as our ability to sell properties that we are holding for disposition on a timely basis or on acceptable terms.

     The September 2001 terrorist attacks and the ongoing threat of terrorism have had an adverse affect on the U.S. economy and, in particular, the economies of the U.S. cities that comprise our core markets. The fear of terrorist attacks has particularly impacted the tourism industry, upon which many of our core markets rely for a significant portion of their income. This economic impact could adversely affect our operating results by reducing the number of tenants or the financial capacity of tenants in our office properties, as well as by reducing the number of guests and patrons at our retail/entertainment property.

     Our portfolio is concentrated in large metropolitan areas, some of which have been or may be perceived to be subject to terrorist attacks. Furthermore, many of our properties consist of high-rise buildings, which may also be subject to this actual or perceived threat, which could be heightened in the event that the U.S. engages in additional armed conflict. This could have a material adverse affect on our ability to lease the office space in our portfolio. Furthermore, the implementation of increased security measures at our properties increases property costs, which we may not be able to fully pass on to tenants. Each of these factors would have a material adverse impact on our operating results and cash flow, as well as the amount of our dividends.

Compliance with our tax cooperation agreement with Trizec Canada may limit our flexibility in making real estate investments and conducting our business.

     In connection with the corporate reorganization, we entered into a tax cooperation agreement with TrizecHahn Office Properties Ltd., a wholly-owned, Canadian subsidiary of TrizecHahn Corporation. Under the agreement, we have agreed to continue to conduct our business activities with regard to the consequences under Canadian tax legislation to TrizecHahn Office Properties Ltd., related Canadian corporations and Trizec Canada. Compliance with this agreement may require us to conduct our business in a manner that may not always be the most efficient or effective because of potential adverse Canadian tax consequences. Furthermore, we may incur incremental costs due to the need to reimburse these entities for any negative tax consequences.

Our financial covenants could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

     The financings secured by our properties contain customary covenants such as those that limit our ability, without the prior consent of the lender, to further mortgage the applicable property or to discontinue insurance coverage. In addition, our secured revolving credit facility contains certain customary restrictions, requirements and other limitations on our ability to incur indebtedness, including debt ratios that we are required to maintain.

     We expect to rely on borrowings under this credit facility for working capital, liquidity, funds for dividends and to finance potential future acquisition and development activities. Our ability to borrow under our credit facility is subject to compliance with our financial and other covenants. If we are unable to borrow under our credit facility, or to refinance existing indebtedness, our financial condition and results of operations would likely be adversely impacted. If we breach covenants in a debt agreement, the lender can declare a default and require us to repay the debt immediately and, if the debt is secured, can take possession of the property securing the loan. In addition, some of our financings may be cross-defaulted or cross-accelerated to our other indebtedness. A cross-default or cross-acceleration may give the lenders under those financings the right also to declare a default or accelerate payment of the loan.

10

Our degree of leverage may adversely affect our business and the market price of our common stock.

     At December 31, 2003, our leverage, which we define as the ratio of our mortgage debt and other loans to the sum of net debt and the book value of stockholders’ equity was approximately 59.3%.

     Our degree of leverage could adversely affect our ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, developments or other general corporate purposes. Our degree of leverage could also make us more vulnerable to a downturn in our business or the economy generally. We do not currently have a policy limiting our degree of leverage, nor do our organizational documents contain such limits. We have entered into certain financial agreements that contain financial and operating covenants limiting our ability under certain circumstances to incur additional indebtedness. There is also a risk that a significant increase in the ratio of our indebtedness to the measures of asset value used by financial analysts may have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

Our historical financial information may not be representative of our financial position, operating results and cash flows as a separate company.

     Our combined consolidated financial statements for periods prior to the effective date of the corporate reorganization have been carved out from the consolidated financial statements of TrizecHahn Corporation using the historical operating results and historical bases of the assets and liabilities of the businesses that we comprise. Accordingly, the historical financial information that we have included in this report does not necessarily reflect what our financial position, operating results and cash flows would have been had we been a separate, stand-alone public entity during all of the periods presented.

     Prior to the effective date of the corporate reorganization, TrizecHahn Corporation accounted for us as, and we operated as, a separate, stand-alone entity. Our costs and expenses include payments made to TrizecHahn Corporation for direct reimbursement of third-party purchased services and a portion of salaries, for certain employees, for direct services rendered. We consider these charges to be reasonable reflections of the use of services provided to us for the benefit that we received.

     Our historical financial information is not necessarily indicative of what our operating results, financial position and cash flows will be in the future. We have not made adjustments to our historical financial information to reflect changes that have occurred in our cost structure as a result of the corporate reorganization, including increased costs associated with being a publicly traded, stand-alone company. These incremental costs included, but are not limited to, additional senior management compensation expense to supplement the existing management team, and internal and external public company corporate compliance costs.

If we are unable to manage our interest rate risk effectively, our cash flows and operating results may suffer.

     At December 31, 2003 we had approximately $138.1 million of debt outstanding (exclusive of debt subject to interest rate caps) that is subject to variable interest rates, and we may incur additional debt that bears interest at variable rates. Accordingly, if interest rates increase, our debt costs will also increase. To manage our overall interest rate risk, we enter into fixed rate loans and floating rate loans. We also enter into interest rate protection agreements consisting of swap contracts and cap contracts in order to mitigate the effect of increasing rates on a portion of our floating rate debt. Developing an effective interest rate strategy, however, is complex, and no strategy can completely insulate us from the risks associated with interest rate fluctuations. Despite our hedging activities, we cannot assure you that we will be able to manage our interest rate risk effectively or that our variable rate exposure will not have a material adverse effect on our cash flows, operating results and cash available for distribution. Furthermore, our interest rate hedging arrangements may expose us to additional risks, including additional costs, such as transaction fees or breakage costs, or requirements to post collateral for hedges that may have decreased in value since execution. Although our interest rate risk management policy establishes minimum credit ratings for counterparties, this does not eliminate the risk that a counterparty may fail to honor its obligations. We cannot assure you that our hedging activities will have the desired beneficial impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

11

Our insurance may not cover some potential losses or may not be obtainable at commercially reasonable rates, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

     We carry insurance on our properties of types and in amounts that we believe are in line with coverage customarily obtained by owners of similar properties. We believe all of our properties are adequately insured. The property insurance that has been maintained historically has been on an “all risk” basis, which until 2003 included losses caused by acts of terrorism. Following the terrorist activity of September 11, 2001 and the resulting uncertainty in the insurance market, insurance companies generally excluded insurance against acts of terrorism from their “all risk” policies. As a result, our “all risk” insurance coverage contained specific exclusions for losses attributable to acts of terrorism. In light of this development, for 2003 we purchased stand-alone terrorism insurance on a portfolio-wide basis with annual aggregate limits that we consider commercially reasonable, considering the availability and cost of such coverage. Such terrorism coverage carried an aggregate limit of $250 million on a portfolio-wide basis. Effective December 31, 2003, we amended our insurance coverage for acts of terrorism as a result of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (“TRIA”) enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in November 2002. Our expired terrorism insurance program that provided a limit of $250 million in the aggregate per year was replaced with a terrorism insurance program with a limit of $500 million per occurrence. This current terrorism insurance program provides coverage for certified nuclear, chemical and biological exposure, whereas the previous insurance coverage excluded this exposure. Under TRIA, we have a per occurrence deductible of $0.1 million and retain 10% of each nuclear, chemical and biological certified event up to a maximum of $50 million per occurrence. If the certified terrorism event is not found to be a nuclear, chemical or biological event, our 10% exposure is limited to $0.1 million. The federal government is obligated to cover the remaining 90% of the loss above the deductible up to $100 billion in the aggregate annually. Since the limit with respect to our portfolio may be less than the value of the affected properties, terrorist acts could result in property damage in excess of our current coverage, which could result in significant losses to us due to the loss of capital invested in the property, the loss of revenues from the impacted property and the capital that would have to be invested in that property. Any such circumstance could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of our operations. In the future, we may obtain different coverage depending on the availability and cost of third party insurance in the marketplace.

     During 2003, we received notices to the effect that our insurance coverage against acts of terrorism may not comply with loan covenants under certain debt agreements. We reviewed our coverage and believed that it complied with these documents and that our insurance coverage adequately protected the lenders’ interests. We initiated discussions with these lenders to satisfy their concerns and assure that their interests and our interests are adequately protected. As a result of our discussions, the lenders who sent notices in 2003 accepted the insurance coverage that we provided, one of whom did so with a formal written irrevocable waiver for the 2003 policies.

     The new terrorism insurance program described above was effective December 31, 2003. Because the program relies upon TRIA, which was not signed into law until November 2002, it does not conform to the formal insurance requirements of the loan covenants that pre-dated TRIA. If a lender takes the position that our new insurance program is not in compliance with covenants in a debt agreement, we could be deemed to be in default under the agreement. In that case, we may decide to obtain insurance to replace or supplement our new insurance program in order to comply with the covenants. To date, however, we have not received any notices from any lenders stating that our insurance program is not in compliance with the loan covenants. In the future, our ability to obtain debt financing, or the terms of such financing, may be adversely affected if lenders insist upon additional requirements or greater insurance coverage against acts of terrorism than may be available to us in the marketplace at rates or on terms that are commercially reasonable.

     Our earthquake insurance on our properties located in areas known to be subject to earthquakes is in an amount and subject to deductibles that we believe is commercially reasonable. However, the amount of earthquake insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover all losses from earthquakes. Since the limit with respect to our portfolio may be less than the value of the affected properties, earthquakes could result in property damage in excess of our current coverage, which could result in significant losses to us due to the loss of capital invested in the property, the loss of revenues from the impacted property and the capital that would have to be invested in that property. Any such circumstance could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of our operations. As a result of increased costs of coverage and decreased availability, the amounts of the third party earthquake insurance we may be able to purchase on commercially reasonable terms may be reduced. In addition, we may discontinue earthquake insurance on some or all of our properties in the future if the premiums exceed our estimation of the value of the coverage.

12

     There are other types of losses, such as from wars, acts of bio-terrorism or the presence of mold at our properties, for which coverage is not available in the market to us or other purchasers of commercial insurance products. With respect to such losses and losses from acts of terrorism, earthquakes or other catastrophic events, if we experience a loss that is uninsured or that exceeds policy limits, we could lose the capital invested in the damaged properties, as well as the anticipated future revenues from those properties. Depending on the specific circumstances of each affected property, it is possible that we could be liable for mortgage indebtedness or other obligations related to the property. Any such loss could materially and adversely affect our business and financial condition and results of operations.

     Additionally, although we generally obtain owners’ title insurance policies with respect to our properties, the amount of coverage under such policies may be less than the full value of such properties. If a loss occurs resulting from a title defect with respect to a property where there is no title insurance or the loss is in excess of insured limits, we could lose all or part of our investment in, and anticipated income and cash flows from, such property.

Fixed real estate costs may intensify revenue losses when income from our properties decreases.

     Our financial results depend primarily on leasing space in our office properties to tenants on terms favorable to us. Costs associated with real estate investments, such as real estate taxes and maintenance and other operating costs, generally do not decrease even when a property is not fully occupied, or the rate of retail sales at a project decreases, or other circumstances cause a reduction in income from the property. Cash flow and income from the operations of our properties may be reduced if a tenant does not pay its rent. Under those circumstances, we might not be able to enforce our rights as landlord without delays, we may be unable to re-lease properties on favorable terms and we might incur substantial legal costs. Additionally, new properties that we may acquire or develop may not produce significant revenue immediately, and the cash flow from existing operations may be insufficient to pay the operating expenses and debt service associated with that property until the property is fully leased. Each of these circumstances can further reduce cash flows and operating results by requiring us to expend capital to cover our fixed real estate costs, thereby reducing the amount of our dividends.

Our competitors may adversely affect our ability to lease our properties, which may cause our cash flows and operating results to suffer.

     We face significant competition from developers, managers and owners of office, retail and mixed-use properties in seeking tenants for our properties. Substantially all of our properties face competition from similar properties in the same markets. These competing properties may have vacancy rates higher than our properties, which may result in their owners being willing to make space available at lower prices than the space in our properties, particularly if there is an oversupply of space available in the market. Competition for tenants could have a material adverse effect on our ability to lease our properties and on the rents that we may charge or concessions that we must grant. If our competitors adversely impact our ability to lease our properties, our cash flows and operating results may suffer, and consequently we may reduce the amount of our dividends.

We face risks associated with property acquisitions.

     Assuming we are able to obtain capital on commercially reasonable terms, and that market conditions warrant it, we may acquire new office properties. Competition from other well-capitalized real estate investors, including both publicly traded REITs and institutional investment funds, may significantly increase the purchase price or prevent us from acquiring a desired property. We may be unable to finance acquisitions on favorable terms, or newly acquired properties may fail to perform as expected. We may underestimate the costs necessary to bring an acquired property up to standards established for its intended market position or may be unable to quickly and efficiently integrate new acquisitions into our existing operations. We may also acquire properties subject to liabilities and without any recourse, or with only limited recourse, with respect to unknown liabilities. Each of these factors could have an adverse affect on our results of operations and financial condition.

13

Because we must distribute a substantial portion of our net income to qualify as a REIT, we may be dependent on third-party sources of capital to fund our future capital needs.

     To qualify as a REIT, we generally must distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our net taxable income each year, excluding capital gains. Because of this distribution requirement, it is not likely that we will be able to fund all of our future capital needs, including capital for property acquisitions and developments, from our net income. In addition, we may not have sufficient cash or other liquid assets on hand to satisfy our distribution requirements in any one year. Therefore, we may have to rely on third-party sources of capital to fund these obligations, which may not be available on favorable terms or at all. Our access to third-party sources of capital depends on a number of things, including the market’s perception of our growth potential and our current and potential future earnings. If we are not able to obtain third-party sources of capital on favorable terms, our results of operations could be adversely affected, which could result in a decline in the market value of our securities. If we are not able to obtain capital from third-parties at all, our results of operations likely would be adversely affected, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders and qualify as a REIT could be jeopardized. Moreover, additional equity offerings may result in substantial dilution of our stockholders’ interests, and additional debt financing may substantially increase our leverage.

We face risks associated with the use of debt to finance our business, including refinancing risk.

     We incur debt in the ordinary course of our business. We expect that we will repay prior to maturity only a small portion of the principal of our debt. We therefore plan to meet our maturing debt obligations partly with existing cash and available credit, cash flows from operations and sales of non-core assets, but primarily through the refinancing of maturing debt obligations with other debt. We are subject to risks normally associated with debt financing, and our ability to refinance our debt will depend on:

•

our financial position;

•

the estimated cash flow of our properties;

•

the value of our properties;

•

liquidity in the debt markets;

•

the availability on commercially acceptable terms of insurance coverage required by lenders;

•

general economic and real estate market conditions; and

•

financial, competitive, business and other factors, including factors beyond our control.

     We cannot assure you that any refinancing of debt with other debt will be possible on terms that are favorable or acceptable to us. If we cannot refinance, extend or pay principal payments due at maturity with the proceeds of other capital transactions, such as new equity capital, our cash flows will not be sufficient in all years to repay debt as it matures.

Restrictions in loan agreements may limit the distributions we receive from our operating subsidiaries and the amounts available for distributions to you as dividends on our common stock.

     We conduct our operations through operating subsidiaries. We and some of our subsidiaries, including subsidiaries that carry on a substantial part of our overall business, are parties to loan agreements containing provisions that require the maintenance of financial ratios and impose limitations on additional indebtedness and distributions in respect of capital stock. These provisions may limit the amount and flexibility of our current and future financings, the receipt of cash distributions from some of our subsidiaries and, therefore, the amounts that will be available for distributions to you as dividends on our common stock. In addition, to qualify as a REIT, we generally must distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our net taxable income each year, excluding capital gains. The provisions in loan agreements discussed above may impair our ability to make the requisite distributions to our stockholders and may force us to borrow funds on a short-term basis to meet the distribution requirements. We cannot assure you that we will be able to borrow funds on terms that are favorable to us.

14

Our success depends on key personnel whose continued service is not guaranteed.

     We depend on the efforts of executive officers and other key personnel, particularly Timothy H. Callahan, our President and Chief Executive Officer. Among the reasons that they are important to our success is that each has a national reputation which attracts business and investment opportunities and assists us in negotiations with lenders. Our regional executive officers also have strong regional reputations. Their reputations aid us in identifying opportunities, having opportunities brought to us, and negotiating with tenants and build-to-suit prospects. While we believe we could find replacements for these key personnel, the loss of their services could adversely impact our relationships with potential tenants, lenders and industry personnel.

Environmental problems at our properties are possible and may be costly.

     We are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to environmental matters, as described in more detail above under “Item 1 — Business — Environmental Matters”. Under these laws, we are exposed to liability primarily as an owner or operator of real property and, as such, we may be responsible for the cleanup or other remediation of contaminated property, which could result in substantial costs that could adversely affect our operating results and cash flow.

     We believe that our exposure to environmental liabilities under currently applicable laws is not material. We cannot assure you, however, that we currently know of all circumstances that may give rise to such exposure. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations can change rapidly, and we may become subject to more stringent environmental laws and regulations in the future. Compliance with more stringent environmental laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our operating results or financial condition.

If we were required to accelerate our efforts to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, our cash flows and operating results could suffer.

     All of our properties must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA. The ADA has separate compliance requirements for “public accommodations” and “commercial facilities”, but generally requires that buildings be made accessible to people with disabilities. Compliance with ADA requirements could require us to remove access barriers, and non-compliance could result in the imposition of fines by the U.S. government or an award of damages to private litigants. We believe that the costs of compliance with the ADA will not have a material adverse effect on our cash flows or operating results. However, if we must make changes to our properties on a more accelerated basis than we anticipate, or if we are required to make substantial alterations or capital expenditures in any of our properties, our cash flows and operating results could suffer.

Additional regulations applicable to our properties could require us to make substantial expenditures to ensure compliance, which could adversely affect our cash flows and operating results.

     Our properties are, and properties that we may acquire in the future will be, subject to various federal, state and local regulatory requirements such as local building codes and other similar regulations. If we fail to comply with these requirements, governmental authorities may impose fines on us or private litigants may be awarded damages against us.

     We believe that our properties are currently in substantial compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. New regulations or changes in existing regulations applicable to our properties, however, may require us to make substantial expenditures to ensure regulatory compliance, which would adversely affect our cash flows and operating results.

We do not have sole control over the properties that we hold with co-venturers or partners or over the revenues and certain decisions associated with those properties, which may limit our flexibility with respect to these investments.

     As of December 31, 2003, we participated in six office joint ventures, one retail joint venture and one development joint venture. The office properties that we own through joint ventures or partnerships total

15

approximately 5.8 million square feet, with our ownership interest totaling approximately 2.9 million square feet. A joint venture or partnership involves risks, including the risk that a co-venturer or partner:

•

may have economic or business interests or goals that are inconsistent with our economic or business interests or goals;

•

may take actions contrary to our instructions or requests, or contrary to our policies or objectives with respect to our real estate investments (including actions that may be inconsistent with our REIT status);

•

may have to give its consent with respect to certain major decisions, including the decision to distribute cash, refinance a property or sell a property; and

•

may become bankrupt, limiting its ability to meet calls for capital contributions and potentially making it more difficult to refinance or sell the property.

     We do not have sole control of certain major decisions relating to the properties that we own through joint ventures, including decisions relating to:

•

the sale of the properties;

•

refinancing;

•

timing and amount of distributions of cash from such properties to us;

•

capital improvements; and

•

calling for capital contributions.

     In some instances, although we are the property manager for a joint venture, the other joint venturer retains approval rights over specific leases or our leasing plan. In addition, the sale or transfer of interests in some of our joint ventures and partnerships is subject to rights of first refusal or first offer and some joint venture and partnership agreements provide for buy-sell or similar arrangements. Such rights may be triggered at a time when we may not want to sell but may be forced to do so because we may not have the financial resources at that time to purchase the other party’s interest. Such rights may also inhibit our ability to sell our interest in a property or a joint venture or partnership within our desired time frame or on any other desired basis.

Our failure to qualify as a REIT would decrease the funds available for distribution to our stockholders and adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

     We believe that we have qualified for taxation as a REIT since 2001. We intend to continue to meet the requirements for taxation as a REIT, but we cannot assure stockholders that we will qualify as a REIT. If we fail to qualify for taxation as a REIT in any taxable year, we will face serious tax consequences that will substantially reduce the funds available for dividend distributions due to the following reasons:

•

we will be subject to tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates;

•

we will not be able to deduct, and will not be required to make, distributions to stockholders in any year in which we fail to qualify as a REIT;

•

we could be subject to federal alternative minimum tax or increased state and local taxes; and

•

unless we are entitled to relief under specific statutory provisions, we will be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which we lost our qualification.

     In addition, failing to qualify as a REIT could impair our ability to raise capital and expand our business, and could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

     Determination of REIT status is highly technical and complex. Even a technical or inadvertent mistake could endanger our REIT status. The determination that we qualify as a REIT requires an ongoing analysis of various factual matters and circumstances, some of which may not be within our control. For example, to qualify as a REIT, at least 95% of our gross income must come from sources that are itemized in the REIT tax laws, and we are prohibited from owning specified amounts of debt or equity securities of some issuers. We are also required to distribute to shareholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding capital gains. The fact that we hold some of our assets through joint ventures and our ongoing reliance on factual determinations, such as determinations related to the valuation of our assets, further complicate the application of the REIT requirements. Furthermore, the

16

Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, could change tax laws and regulations or the courts may issue new rulings that make it more difficult or impossible for us to maintain REIT status. We do not believe that any pending or proposed law changes could change our REIT status. We cannot guarantee, however, that we will continue to be qualified and taxed as a REIT because our qualification and taxation as a REIT will depend upon our ability to meet the requirements imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, on an ongoing basis.

Risks Relating To Our Capital Stock

P.M. Capital Inc., a corporation controlled by Peter Munk, maintains an ownership interest in Trizec Canada by which Mr. Munk will control the election of members of our board of directors until January 1, 2008.

     Mr. Munk, our Chairman and the Chairman of Trizec Canada, controls P.M. Capital Inc. P.M. Capital, through its ownership of Trizec Canada’s multiple voting shares, has a majority of the votes in elections of Trizec Canada’s board of directors and on other matters to be voted on by Trizec Canada shareholders. Trizec Canada, through its indirect ownership of our common stock and special voting stock, has a majority of the votes in elections of our board of directors until January 1, 2008, provided that Trizec Canada or its subsidiaries hold our special voting stock until such time. Mr. Munk’s effective control of Trizec Canada will therefore enable him to elect our entire board of directors. Although a nominating committee composed of independent members of our board of directors nominates candidates for election to our board, until January 1, 2008, Mr. Munk may exercise his control over us to elect alternative candidates. Additionally, as long as Mr. Munk has this right to elect directors, he also has the power at any time, under Delaware law, to remove one or more directors.

An ownership limitation in our certificate of incorporation may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

     Our certificate of incorporation contains an ownership limitation that is designed to enable us to qualify in the future as a “domestically-controlled REIT” within the meaning of Section 897(h)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. This limitation restricts any person that is not a qualifying U.S. person from beneficially owning our capital stock if that person’s holdings, when aggregated with shares of our capital stock beneficially owned by all other persons that are not qualifying U.S. persons, would exceed 45% by value of our issued and outstanding capital stock.

     As a result of our enforcement of this ownership limitation, persons other than qualifying U.S. persons are effectively excluded from the market for our common stock. The inability of holders of our common stock to sell their shares to persons other than qualifying U.S. persons, or the perception of this inability, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Higher market interest rates may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

     One of the factors that investors may consider important in deciding whether to buy or sell shares of a REIT is the dividend with respect to such REIT’s shares as a percentage of the price of those shares, relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates go up, prospective purchasers of shares of our common stock may require a higher yield on our common stock. Higher market interest rates would not, however, result in more funds for us to distribute and, to the contrary, would likely increase our borrowing costs and potentially decrease funds available for distribution. Thus, higher market interest rates could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

The sale or availability for sale of approximately 60 million shares of our common stock owned indirectly by Trizec Canada or shares of our common stock that may be issued hereafter could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

     As a result of the corporate reorganization, approximately 60 million shares, or approximately 40% of the outstanding shares of our common stock, are held by Trizec Canada through an indirect, wholly-owned Hungarian subsidiary. Dispositions of this common stock may occur in the following circumstances:

17

	•		Trizec Canada shareholders will have the right to redeem their shares from time to time, and Trizec Canada will have the option of satisfying these redemptions with shares of our common stock held by the Hungarian subsidiary.
	•		Trizec Canada may cause the Hungarian subsidiary to dispose of some or all of the shares of our common stock held by the Hungarian subsidiary at any time for any reason.

     We may issue additional shares of our common stock:

•

upon exercises of our stock options and warrants; and

•

upon conversions of our Class F convertible stock (for additional information on the conversion of our Class F convertible stock, see “Risk Factors-The issuance of additional shares of our common stock pursuant to the terms of our Class F convertible stock may dilute your interest in our company and adversely affect the market price of our common stock” below).

     To permit market sales of our common stock in the circumstances described above, including by subsequent holders, we have registered or agreed to register under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, all of the common stock described above.

     In addition, Trizec Canada’s Hungarian subsidiary has pledged as collateral for secured credit facilities of TrizecHahn Corporation a portion of the shares of our common stock that it holds, and in the event of a default the pledgee under those facilities may realize on the pledge and sell the shares.

     We cannot predict what effect, if any, market sales of shares of our common stock held indirectly by Trizec Canada or issued upon exercises of our stock options or warrants or upon conversions of our Class F convertible stock would have on the market price of our common stock. We are also unable to predict what effect, if any, the availability of any of these shares for future sale may have on the market price of our common stock. Future sales of substantial amounts of our common stock, or the perception that these sales could occur, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Limits on changes of control may discourage takeover attempts that may be beneficial to holders of our common stock.

     Provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, as well as provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Delaware corporate law, may:

•

delay or prevent a change of control over us or a tender offer for our common stock, even if those actions might be beneficial to holders of our common stock; and

•

limit our stockholders’ opportunity to receive a potential premium for their shares of common stock over then-prevailing market prices.

     For example, primarily to facilitate the maintenance of our qualification as a REIT, our certificate of incorporation generally prohibits ownership, directly or indirectly, by any single stockholder of more than 9.9% of the value of outstanding shares of our capital stock. Our board of directors may modify or waive the application of this ownership limit with respect to one or more persons if it receives a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service or an opinion of counsel concluding that ownership in excess of this limit with respect to one or more persons will not jeopardize our status as a REIT. The ownership limit, however, may nevertheless have the effect of inhibiting or impeding a change of control over us or a tender offer for our common stock.

An anticipated increase in taxes applicable to dividends that we pay to a Hungarian subsidiary of Trizec Canada may decrease the amount of our dividends on our common stock.

     As a result of the corporate reorganization, Trizec Canada owns approximately 40% of our common stock indirectly through an indirect, wholly-owned Hungarian subsidiary. The Hungarian subsidiary and its shareholders will be subject to taxes, expected to be only U.S. and Hungarian cross-border withholding taxes, in respect of dividends paid by us to the Hungarian subsidiary and by the Hungarian subsidiary to Trizec Canada.

18

     The Hungarian subsidiary currently holds all of our special voting stock. As the holder of this stock, the Hungarian subsidiary is entitled to dividends from us that, when aggregated with dividends received by the Hungarian subsidiary on our common stock and after deducting related non-Canadian taxes, including the withholding taxes described above, will equal the dividends received by our U.S. stockholders on our common stock on a per share basis. Dividends on our special voting stock will be payable only in connection with common stock dividends paid within 66 months after the effective date of the corporate reorganization.

     The U.S.-Hungary income tax treaty generally provides for a reduced rate of U.S. cross-border withholding taxes applicable to dividends paid by us to the Hungarian subsidiary. The income tax treaty is currently being renegotiated. We expect that as a result of the renegotiation, the effective rate of U.S. and Hungarian cross-border withholding taxes required to be paid on the aforementioned common stock and special voting stock dividends will increase from approximately 10% to approximately 30% (or approximately 35% if Trizec Canada were not to restructure its Hungarian subsidiary). We do not presently know how long the renegotiation process will take. If, however, an increased tax rate took effect at any time prior to the expiration of the dividend right on our special voting stock, any dividends paid on our special voting stock would increase, thereby decreasing the amount available for dividends on our common stock.

The issuance of additional shares of our common stock pursuant to the terms of our Class F convertible stock may dilute your interest in our company and adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

     In order that Trizec Canada and its subsidiaries, on the one hand, and our other stockholders, on the other hand, will share ratably any FIRPTA tax, as described below, that TrizecHahn Corporation, Trizec Canada or their subsidiaries may incur, we have issued all outstanding shares of our Class F convertible stock to the indirect, wholly-owned Hungarian subsidiary of Trizec Canada. Under the terms of the Class F convertible stock, this stock is convertible into shares of our common stock if TrizecHahn Corporation, Trizec Canada or their subsidiaries incur FIRPTA tax and any related costs, interest and penalties in connection with:

•

the corporate reorganization; or

•

specified future transactions or events that allow for the conversion of our Class F convertible stock into common stock, including:

	—		dispositions of our common stock in connection with major corporate transactions or events, such as mergers, requiring the approval of a specified portion of our common stockholders or the tendering of a specified portion of our common stock to effect those transactions or events, and
	—		transactions or events after the end of the five-year period required for our qualification as a “domestically-controlled REIT”.

     In general, a foreign corporation disposing of a U.S. real property interest, including shares of U.S. corporations whose principal assets are U.S. real estate, is subject to a tax, known as FIRPTA tax, equal to 35% of the gain recognized on the disposition of that property interest. If, however, the interest being disposed of is an interest in a REIT that qualifies as a “domestically-controlled REIT” within the meaning of Section 897(h)(4)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, no FIRPTA tax is payable. Whether we will qualify as a “domestically-controlled REIT” on any date will depend on our ability to demonstrate that less than 50% of our capital stock, by value, has been owned directly or indirectly by persons who are not qualifying U.S. persons during a continuous five-year period ending on that date.

     If any of TrizecHahn Corporation, Trizec Canada or their subsidiaries incur FIRPTA tax in connection with the circumstances discussed above, our Class F convertible stock will be convertible into additional shares of our common stock in an amount sufficient to fund the payment of the FIRPTA tax, plus reasonable costs and expenses in connection with the payment of the tax. If we are required to issue additional shares of our common stock pursuant to the terms of our Class F convertible stock, all shares of our common stock, including those held indirectly by Trizec Canada, would suffer immediate dilution, which could be substantial. In addition, the sale of our common stock by Trizec Canada or its subsidiaries to fund the payment of FIRPTA tax in the circumstances discussed above may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. We believe that none of TrizecHahn Corporation, Trizec Canada or their subsidiaries should incur a material amount of FIRPTA tax in connection with any of the transfers made as part of the corporate reorganization. We cannot assure you, however, that no material amount of FIRPTA tax would be payable.

19

     We are not currently planning to undertake any transactions or events that would allow for the conversion of our Class F convertible stock, including any transactions or events requiring the approval of a specified portion of our common stockholders or the tendering of a specified portion of our common stock to effect those transactions or events. We cannot assure you, however, that any of those transactions or events will not take place during the five-year period required for our qualification as a “domestically-controlled REIT”. If any such transactions or events were to take place at such time, Trizec Canada or its subsidiaries might incur at least some amount of FIRPTA tax. Furthermore, the existence of our Class F Convertible Stock may have the effect of inhibiting or impeding a change of control over us or a tender offer for our common stock.

     We believe that after the end of the five-year period required for our qualification as a “domestically-controlled REIT”, neither Trizec Canada nor its subsidiaries should incur a material amount of FIRPTA tax under circumstances that would allow the holder of our Class F convertible stock to exercise its conversion right. Based on all of the facts and circumstances, we believe that 63 months after the effective date of the corporate reorganization we will be able to demonstrate that during the relevant time period less than 50% of our capital stock, by value, was owned directly or indirectly by persons who were not qualifying U.S. persons and that, as a result, we will then qualify as a “domestically-controlled REIT”.

     Our certificate of incorporation and corporate policies are designed to enable us to qualify as a “domestically-controlled REIT” as planned. The ownership restrictions relating to non-U.S. persons in our certificate of incorporation will prohibit ownership by persons if such ownership would cause us to violate the requirements for being a “domestically-controlled REIT”. We believe these provisions will be effective, although certainty in this regard is not possible. Legislative developments during the relevant five-year qualification period could also affect our ability to qualify as a “domestically-controlled REIT”. Therefore, we cannot assure you that we will become a “domestically-controlled REIT” 63 months after the effective date of the corporate reorganization.

The reduction of the tax rate on certain dividends from non-REIT C corporations may adversely affect us and our stockholders.

     The maximum tax rate on certain corporate dividends received by individuals through December 31, 2008 has been reduced from 38.6% to 15%. This change has reduced substantially the so-called “double taxation” (that is, taxation at both the corporate and shareholder levels) that had generally applied to non-REIT corporations but not to REITs. REIT dividends are not eligible for the new, lower income tax rates, except in certain circumstances where the dividends are attributable to income that has been subject to corporate-level tax. This legislation could cause individual investors to view stock in non-REIT corporations that pay dividends as more attractive than stock in REITs, which may negatively affect the value of our common stock. We cannot predict what effect, if any, the reduction in the tax rate on certain non-REIT dividends may have on the value of our stock, either in terms of price or relative to other potential investments.

Even if we qualify as a REIT, we are required to pay some taxes, which may result in less cash available for distribution to stockholders.

     Even if we qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we are required to pay some federal, state and local taxes on our income and property. For example, if we have net income from “prohibited transactions,” that income will be subject to a 100% federal tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. The determination as to whether a particular sale is a prohibited transaction depends on the facts and circumstances related to that sale. While we undertake sales of assets that become inconsistent with our long-term strategic or return objectives, we do not believe that those sales should be considered prohibited transactions. There can be no assurance, however, that the IRS would not contend otherwise. In addition, we may have to pay some state or local income taxes because not all states and localities treat REITs the same as they are treated for federal income tax purposes. Several of our corporate subsidiaries have elected to be treated as “taxable REIT subsidiaries” for federal income tax purposes. A taxable REIT subsidiary is a fully taxable corporation and is limited in its ability to deduct interest payments made to us. In addition, we will be subject to a 100% penalty tax on some payments that we receive if the economic arrangements among our tenants, our taxable REIT subsidiaries and us are not comparable to similar arrangements among unrelated parties. To the extent that we, or any taxable REIT subsidiary, are required to pay federal, state or local taxes, we will have less cash available for distribution to stockholders.

20

Item 2.	Properties

Office Property Portfolio

     The supply of, and demand for, office space affect the performance of our office property portfolio. Macroeconomic conditions, such as current and expected economic trends, business and consumer confidence and employment levels, drive this demand.

     Over the next several years, we plan to continue to concentrate our capital on our core markets and to exit selectively from investments in our secondary markets in an orderly fashion as we have done in the past. We expect principally to redeploy proceeds from sales into debt repayment and investment in Class A office buildings in our core markets. We consider Class A office buildings to be buildings that are professionally managed and maintained, that attract high-quality tenants and command upper-tier rental rates and that are modern structures or have been modernized to compete with newer buildings.

     Geographic Diversity

     Our geographically diversified asset base makes it more likely that we will be able to generate sustainable cash flows throughout the various phases of economic cycles than if we were less diversified. The following table summarizes the major city focus and geographic distribution of our U.S. office property portfolio at December 31, 2003.

U.S. Office Portfolio Summary
(At December 31, 2003)

     In-place gross rents consist of the amounts paid under our leases including the costs of providing services and taxes. In-place gross rents exclude straight-line rent adjustments. In 2003, based upon our total managed area, leases expired at an average gross rent of approximately $20.64 per square foot and were generally being signed at an average gross rent per square foot of approximately $20.75. Based upon our owned area, leases expired at an average gross rent of approximately $20.62 per square foot and were generally being signed at an average gross rent per square foot of approximately $20.02.

     Lease Profile

     For our U.S. office portfolio, market rents at December 31, 2003 were on average approximately 2% below our average in-place rents. Over the next five years, beginning in 2004, scheduled lease expirations in our office

21

portfolio average approximately 9.6% annually, based on our owned space at December 31, 2003. The data in the table are based on our owned area. Expiring gross rents exclude straight-line rent adjustments.

Scheduled Annual Expirations of Office Leases⁽¹⁾
(At December 31, 2003)

     Over the last three years, we have leased approximately 21.8 million square feet of new and renewal space. Occupancy for the entire portfolio based on owned area was approximately 86.6% at December 31, 2003, down from approximately 89.0% at December 31, 2002.

22

     Tenant Diversity

     Our diversified tenant base adds to the durability of our future cash flow. The following table summarizes the breadth and diversity by industry of the approximately 2,300 tenants in the portfolio at December 31, 2003.

     This large tenant base and strong position in key markets allows us to take advantage of economies of scale and drive internal growth in the areas of parking, telecommunications and antennas, specialty retail leasing, signage and branding opportunities, energy and national purchasing contracts.

     Our ten largest tenants accounted for approximately 20% of our gross rent revenue, excluding straight-line rent adjustments for the year ended December 31, 2003. No single tenant accounted for more than approximately 4% of our gross rent revenue, excluding straight-line rent adjustments for the year ended December 31, 2003. The following table sets forth information concerning our ten largest tenants at December 31, 2003.

     Our Top Office Properties

     The following table summarizes our top ten properties based on contribution to our rent revenue for the year ended December 31, 2003. All of the properties in the table are 100% owned unless otherwise indicated.

23

     Investment in Sears Tower

     On December 3, 1997, we purchased a subordinated mortgage collateralized by the Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois, for approximately $70.0 million and became the residual beneficiary of the trust that holds title to the Sears Tower. The outstanding balance of the subordinated mortgage, including accrued interest, was approximately $294.0 million at acquisition. At December 31, 2002, the Sears Tower was held by a trust established for the benefit of an affiliate of Sears, Roebuck and Co. The trust had a scheduled termination date of January 1, 2003, at which time the assets of the trust, subject to a participating first mortgage, were to be distributed to us as the residual beneficiary. The subordinated mortgage was subordinate to an existing non-recourse participating first mortgage.

     The subordinated mortgage held by us, which was to mature in July 2010, had certain participation rights to the extent of available cash flow. Since acquisition, we had not been accruing interest income on the subordinated mortgage due to the uncertainty regarding ultimate collectibility of accrued interest. In 2002, a loss provision of approximately $48.3 million was recorded to reduce the carrying value of our investment in the Sears Tower to its estimated fair value of approximately $23.6 million.

     On August 28, 2003, we sold our interest in the subordinated mortgage to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the holder of the first mortgage, for approximately $9.0 million. During the third quarter of 2003, we recognized a loss on the sale of our interest in the subordinated mortgage to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of approximately $15.5 million. In addition, we recognized a tax benefit related to this transaction of approximately $12.0 million which is included in benefit (provision) for income and other corporate taxes. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has retained us as leasing and management agent for the Sears Tower on a third-party basis.

Retail/Entertainment Properties

     At December 31, 2003, we owned one retail/entertainment property, Hollywood & Highland in Los Angeles, California, which is a 645,000-square-foot complex. We also developed a 640-room hotel as part of the complex, which is being held in a joint venture that is consolidated in our financial statements as of December 31, 2003. The complex opened on November 8, 2001. The hotel opened on December 26, 2001. The retail portion of the project was 84.8% occupied at December 31, 2003. On February 27, 2004 we sold the Hollywood & Highland complex for gross proceeds of approximately $201.0 million. In conjunction with the sale, we paid off and retired approximately $214.1 million of mortgage debt related to the Hollywood & Highland complex.

     In January 2003, we sold Paseo Colorado, a 565,000-square-foot, mixed-use re-development in Pasadena, California, for approximately $113.5 million of gross proceeds.

24

     In the fourth quarter of 2001, we recorded an allowance for loss related to Hollywood & Highland and Desert Passage, a 475,000 square-foot hotel and casino complex in Las Vegas, Nevada, of approximately $239.4 million. This allowance for loss reflected the negative impact of the September 2001 terrorist attacks on tourism, upon which Hollywood & Highland and Desert Passage depend for a significant portion of their visitors. In addition, Desert Passage was impacted by the September 2001 filing of a Chapter 11 reorganization by the unaffiliated owners of the Aladdin Hotel and Casino, which is adjacent to Desert Passage and upon which Desert Passage further depends for a significant portion of its visitors.

     The results of operations of both projects did not meet the levels expected in 2002 and we believed the fair value of these properties had declined further. Accordingly, an additional provision for loss in the amount of approximately $238.4 million was recorded for the year ended December 31, 2002. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Results of Operations — Comparison of Year Ended December 31, 2003 to Year Ended December 31, 2002.”

     In July 2003, we reached an agreement in which we agreed to end litigation and resolve standing disputes concerning the development and subsequent bankruptcy of the hotel and casino adjacent to our Desert Passage project. In exchange for our agreement to end the development litigation and our agreement to permit and assist in the re-theming of the hotel and casino complex, the other parties to the litigation agreed to dismiss all claims against us. This settlement agreement was approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada in August 2003. In the third quarter of 2003, we recognized a gain on lawsuit settlement of approximately $26.7 million comprised primarily of the forgiveness of debt. We did not receive any cash proceeds from the litigation settlement.

     In December 2003, we sold Desert Passage for approximately $239.1 million of net proceeds. The gain on sale of Desert Passage was approximately $26.5 million. In addition, we recorded a loss on early debt retirement of approximately $0.9 million comprised primarily of the write-off of deferred financing fees.

DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN INDEBTEDNESS

Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility

     We entered into a three-year, $350.0 million senior unsecured revolving credit facility with a group of banks in the fourth quarter of 2001. In the fourth quarter of 2002, we and the group of banks unanimously agreed to amend and restate the facility as a secured facility. Generally, in exchange for the receipt of collateral, the banks agreed to provide more flexible financial covenants than had been originally negotiated. The credit facility is available for our general corporate purposes, including dividends and distributions to our stockholders, subject to certain restrictions on our making any such dividends or distributions. Interest will be calculated periodically on the borrowings outstanding under the facility on a variable rate basis using a spread over LIBOR. The spread will be dependent on our total leverage. In addition, we must pay to the lenders a fee based on the unused portion of the credit facility.

     The amount of the credit facility available to be borrowed at any time is determined by the encumbered properties we, or our subsidiaries that guarantee the credit facility, own that satisfy certain conditions of eligible properties. These conditions are not uncommon for credit facilities of this nature. As of December 31, 2003, the amount eligible to be borrowed was approximately $217.0 million, none of which was outstanding. During 2004, the amount available to be borrowed will likely fluctuate. The capacity under the facility may decrease as we sell or place permanent debt on assets currently supporting the facility. In addition, the capacity may decrease if assets no longer meet certain eligibility requirements. Likewise, the capacity under the facility may increase as certain assets become encumbered by the facility or otherwise meet the eligibility requirements of the facility. During 2004, we expect the outstanding balance to fluctuate. The outstanding balance will likely increase from time to time as we use funds from the facility to meet a variety of liquidity requirements such as dividend payments, tenant installation costs, future tax payments and acquisitions that may not be fully met through operations. Likewise, any outstanding balance may be reduced as a result of proceeds generated from asset sales, secured borrowings, operating cash flow and other sources of liquidity.

25

     Under our credit facility, we are subject to covenants, including financial covenants, restrictions on other indebtedness, restrictions on encumbrances of properties that we use in determining our borrowing capacity and certain customary investment restrictions. The financial covenants include the requirement for our total leverage ratio not to exceed 65%, with the exception that the total leverage ratio could reach 67.5% for one calendar quarter in 2003; the requirement for our interest coverage ratio to be greater than 2.0 times; and the requirement for our net worth to be in excess of $1.5 billion. Our financial covenants also include a restriction on dividends or distributions of more than 90% of our funds from operations (as defined in the revolving credit facility agreement). If we are in default in respect of our obligations under the credit facility, dividends will be limited to the amount necessary to maintain REIT status. At December 31, 2003, we were in compliance with these covenants.

TrizecHahn Office Properties Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

     In May 2001, we refinanced approximately $1.16 billion of existing long-term debt through the private placement issuance by a special-purpose vehicle created by one of our subsidiaries of approximately $1.44 billion of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates. As of December 31, 2003, the balance of these certificates was approximately $1.40 billion. The certificates are backed by mortgages that secure non-recourse loans on 25 of our office properties and have maturities of five, seven and ten years. At December 31, 2003, the weighted average interest rate on this debt was approximately 4.7%.

One New York Plaza Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

     In May 1999, we entered into a non-recourse acquisition loan in the amount of approximately $245.9 million to fund a portion of the purchase price for One New York Plaza. The loan is secured by a first mortgage on the property, bears an interest rate of 7.3% and matures in May 2006. Subsequently, the loan was securitized through the private issuance of approximately $245.9 million of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates. The certificates are backed by the non-recourse mortgage loan on the property. At December 31, 2003, approximately $235.0 million was outstanding under this facility.

Desert Passage Credit Facility

     In May 1998, one of our subsidiaries entered into a loan agreement with a group of banks to finance the construction of Desert Passage. The original loan facility in the total amount of approximately $194.0 million was amended in August 2002. At the time of the amendment, the amount of the loan was fixed at approximately $178.0 million, we became a co-borrower of the loan and the maturity was extended until May 2005. The loan was secured by a mortgage on the property and was also guaranteed by certain of our other subsidiaries. Interest was calculated periodically on a variable rate basis using a spread over LIBOR. In December 2003, we paid off and retired the Desert Passage credit facility in conjunction with the sale of Desert Passage. We recorded a loss on early debt retirement of approximately $0.9 million comprised primarily of the write-off of deferred financing fees.

Hollywood & Highland Credit Facility

     In May 1999, one of our subsidiaries entered into a loan agreement with a group of banks to finance the construction of the retail and entertainment component of the Hollywood & Highland project. The total loan facility was in the amount of approximately $150.0 million, of which approximately $140.6 million had been drawn as of December 31, 2003. The loan was secured by a mortgage on the property and was also guaranteed by us. Interest was calculated periodically on a variable rate basis using a spread over LIBOR. On May 10, 2002, the maturity date of this loan was extended to May 2004. The Hollywood & Highland credit facility was paid off and retired in conjunction with the sale of the Hollywood & Highland complex on February 27, 2004.

Hollywood & Highland Hotel Credit Facility

     In April 2000, one of our subsidiaries entered into a loan agreement with a group of banks to finance the construction of the Hollywood & Highland Hotel, of which we owned a 91.5% interest at December 31, 2003 and is consolidated in our financial statements as of December 31, 2003. The total loan facility was in the amount of

26

approximately $98.0 million, of which approximately $74.0 million had been drawn as of December 31, 2003 (approximately $67.7 million at our pro rata share). The loan was secured by a mortgage on the property and was also guaranteed by us. In April 2003, the joint venture amended and restated this loan, which had been scheduled to mature in April 2003. As part of the amended contract, on April 11, 2003, the Hollywood & Highland Hotel joint venture paid approximately $15.3 million to reduce the outstanding balance to approximately $78.0 million. The joint venture was also required to make a further payment of approximately $4.0 million in October 2003 and was required to make another payment of approximately $4.0 million in April 2004, so that the balance of the loan outstanding in April 2004 would be approximately $70.0 million. In April 2004, the loan was to be subject to a potential additional paydown based on a new appraisal. This loan was scheduled to mature in April 2005. The Hollywood & Highland Hotel credit facility was paid off and retired in conjunction with the sale of the Hollywood & Highland complex on February 27, 2004.

Mortgage Debt and Other Loans

     The following table sets forth information concerning mortgage debt and other loans as of December 31, 2003. The economic interest of our owning entity is 100% unless otherwise noted.

27

PROPERTY PORTFOLIO

U.S. Office Properties

     Operating Properties

     The following table sets forth key information as of December 31, 2003 with respect to our operating U.S. office properties. The economic interest of our owning entity is 100% unless otherwise noted. The total occupancy rates for the markets and portfolio as a whole in the table are weighted based on owned area.

28